You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
What is it about Poker Players.
TheEdge949
Member Posts: 5,713
in Poker Chat
Most of us do something because we enjoy it, it earns us money, we want to be entertained or we have a personal goal or ambition to achieve.
Why oh why then would some people pay money to partake in an activity that they feel is manipulated against them, complain loudly when the confirmation bias kicks in, but still continue to play over and over.
You may know people who are like this but for the life of me I can't understand the thought process.
Is it because like problem gamblers it's the danger of losing rather than the thrill of winning that arouses the desire to keep playing. Is it because they feel that if they play on and on and on their theories will eventually be proven or is it because they have a need to be a loser. Some people enjoy the role of victim because it's a place where they can abdicate their personal responsibility for bad decisions made and blame it on a vindictive program.
We seem to have some philosophical types here at Sky so I thought I'd throw it open.
Why oh why then would some people pay money to partake in an activity that they feel is manipulated against them, complain loudly when the confirmation bias kicks in, but still continue to play over and over.
You may know people who are like this but for the life of me I can't understand the thought process.
Is it because like problem gamblers it's the danger of losing rather than the thrill of winning that arouses the desire to keep playing. Is it because they feel that if they play on and on and on their theories will eventually be proven or is it because they have a need to be a loser. Some people enjoy the role of victim because it's a place where they can abdicate their personal responsibility for bad decisions made and blame it on a vindictive program.
We seem to have some philosophical types here at Sky so I thought I'd throw it open.
Comments
However, Kudos for mentioning one of the best comedies of all time.
1. I play because I enjoy a number of things: competing; challenging myself intellectually; challenging my mental resilience and making some money. The latter is the main reason I would never choose chess over poker.
2. The average man thinks they are naturally gifted at three things: driving, sex and poker. The average man is deluded about their ability in all three. For me personally, two out three ain't bad
3. Problem gambling is complex issue, with a ton of academic research conducted on the subject. The only thing I remember being surprised about is that many problem gamblers want to lose to reinforce their own belief about themselves being a loser.
4. Poker has a very low incidence of problem gambling.
Point 2 is perhaps most relevant for some. Facing the reality that you just aren't that good at poker is difficult for many and a huge proportion of players have no comprehension of what variance can look like in poker either. Throw in a healthy dose of confirmation bias and that can only lead to the conclusion for a number of players: that the deal must be rigged somehow. Why do people keep playing at that point? I have no idea. Maybe boredom, maybe some element of problem gambling, who knows?
The constant frustration I get is every time I hit the numbers for a consistent period that shows that I can do it the crud hits the fan and it goes haywire.
Its very frustrating I wont go down the line of claiming rigged, to be clear I think both sides on that debate are speaking with too much confidence. Very few individuals would have the ability to be sure one way or another. Even if you find proof its unlikely it would get anywhere.
But it can be very frustrating to work hard at it and really believe your getting somewhere and then hit a brick wall where it just seems everything that can go wrong does go wrong.
If I truly believed the game to be rigged though I just would either not play at all or take attitude its entertainment and I accept it for what it is.
I met a girl from Tallinn and it was either her or gambling, so i quit playing serious poker and going to casinos or bookmakers, and limited myself to £5 per day online. I realized that it, 'is not what you can win, but what you can lose' and now i still gamble for fun on football, NFL, cricket, rugby, & horses, but just for small stakes.
I once went to Shawfield dogs in 1981 with £2,000 and lost it all (probably £8,000 now) and i managed to lose £2,000 in slots in one night in a casino in 2005 and it leaves a horrible sick feeling in your stomach as you walk out the door.
I have a young friend from my poker days who has four kids and puts big bets on daft things such as bookings, or corners and i have tried to help him, but he continues. He reminds me of myself when i was his age, when i never listened to advice.
Tournament poker is not really a huge gambling risk, but cash poker is a different story, and there are plenty of good players who can safely walk into a casino and NOT play the tables, but i couldn't. Playing poker live is far superior to playing online, but if i play on my laptop i can only lose £5 a day max, and i can win big amounts by qualifying for big events (but i failed last night in £110 game after misreading a thief jaja).
Money gives me choices and i go to Fueteventura or Crete every two months, but if i played big poker games or bet heavy on sports it would limit my options, and it would depress me if i lost.
Being a compulsive gambler taught me the value of money indirectly, because when you are skint, you have no choices and it affects your mental stability. No money no honey lol
I knew another young guy who was only 20 years old and went from playing £10 comps in casinos to playing in Aruba and Vegas. I was watching him playing £5,000 cash games online a few years ago, but IDK how he is doing now.
Poker is fun and it takes an hour to learn how to play, and a lifetime to master it, but do not give up your day job.
PS sorry if i ever outdraw anyone in a 28p S&G, but i only want the poker point, so i can qualify for better things.
We are still able to make money by adjusting our games to what the deck is highly likely to do given certain situations... though as poker players we feel its a disgrace that we have to play like this....
You will prove everyone wrong and do the morally correct thing of exposing the fixed deck when you win UKOPS. It will be checkmate to everyone.
Go on @thewaddy do it win UKOPS.
@TheWaddy for UkOPS champion
We have to 'eeek out' a profit due to unlikely hands, not crush the game.... Just make a modest profit in games that are the softest on earth. This generally involves folding in spots you wouldnt in a real game.... eg flopping a hi straight at hi lo and your opponent max betting... not sure how you win all the top prizes doing that!
Im beginning to realise doubleme, bbmike, the edge, etc etc, just dont really understand what im saying in my posts, for whatever agenda they have...
But they have annoying habit of replying with stuff that just isnt relevant to the points or just simply against what my view actually is.
We got players saying i should be winning big because of the poor maths of the deck, examples of non enhanced hands, that involve massive enhancement, but dont change the lead.... its nuts!
Anybody holding a set, flush or flush draw, an open ender or even a middle pinner is going to be very interested and given that there are 4 hole cards that could be everyone else at the table.
Part of the problem seems to be that you think the best hand with 2 to come MUST win.
Maybe you just give too good implied odds.
i did see one... one ... against Asho the other week.... it was quite a moment and i told him so in the chat box. First one in what, 3yrs or so?
I dont give anybody any implied odds as i simply dont bet these hands anymore, let the hand play out, fold when i can see he has plainly hit his flush, etc. Simply no point in inflating a pot you cant win.
I wish players could keep up with what i am saying, its really quite simple.
I will try again likely in vain with this thought experiment suppose I come on here one day and claim the previous night I was abducted by aliens. I in this hypothetical bring in some weird conspiracy regarding our governments and how the aliens are either involved or trying to save us and expose it. people may ask me for proof of this it would hard to be taken seriously without proof. If I then preceded to just throw out source after source of weird alien conspiracy stories and links to random videos where others claimed things I would not be taken seriously.
This is in effect what you do. To be clear I have ran really bad from time to time, and I would be lying if I said I had never entertained the thought at any of those moments that there may some sort of fix. I would assume most players even large numbers of the top players out there at some point may have entertained those thoughts. However there is one thing needed to get taken seriously and that is evidence.
I am in the final stage of a maths and statistics degree, and there are at least several players I know of who play or have played on sky in the past who are much more educated in maths and statistics myself. There are people out there who can point you in the right direction to use proper statistics to test for this and provide the evidence.
not trying to be mean or condescending here but what level of maths is your education at? I ask because if I or someone more qualified then me tries to explain to you how to carry out a statistics test, for your claims it helps to know your level.
Anyone here can cherry pick large number of hands that proves nothing. That is just the equivalent of me in the hypothetical scenario posting links to random clickbait conspiracy articles.
I am open minded I have not concluded you are definitely wrong, you may well be right. Prove it. otherwise you cant be taken seriously.
I know **** well, we all see a high level of insane hands, it would be impossible not to.... cos there is.... Its just how you choose to decipher what we are all seeing. For me, who plays with a real deck rarely, but when he does, its a completely different experience for several days and sees nothing of any great note... whereas any given hour online you will see these hands... the only ever explanation from sites is 'you see more hands online'. Well in my scenario, this does not add up.
I am just trying to get change, not to prove anything.... cos as we have said before, it is impossible to prove either way.
@Williams12 It appears the the Sky clique do indeed like to play this game. I have to play this version or not play any poker. But boy i prefer the version where we are not getting compounded nuts to 2nd nuts and the like, in a heads up game, over and over.
They were happy to answer and to boast about their 'award winning technology' but when i asked for futher information, they then did not reply.
Maybe just publish the tests and the results? Why not? I highly suspect that their 'award winning technology' centres around just how often each card comes out and not how it affects the hand(i remember one of the Sky clique putting up some kind of 'test' result and it just centred around how often each card came out).
Just proving that the ace of spades comes out just as often as the 2 of hearts, really does not cut it for me as any kind of audit. But im sure that is all the audit does.
I also highly suspect that if they ran their test of a high number of hands and the question was asked how many times the river card affected the hand, they would not know the answer.